AIM-120 AMRAAM

The unexpected is a military tactic. Nobody disputes a B-2 can't be loaded up with air to air missiles and JDAM's.

Pervious i truly don't understand where come from those "creative" ideas on weapons system's CONOPS ;not nobody but anyone at world question the effective possibility by part of B2 to operatively employ,in any way,an AAM load.

In any tactical task requiring the employement of an AAM load - Airspace Patrol,Offensive and Defensive Counter Air,ISR Asset Escort,Air Interdiction etc.. etc.. - kynematical qualities of the carrying platforms are central; those capabilities,in fact, are absolutely irreplaceable not only in achieving ,in the specific time function of a particular air operation in examination, the required spatial positioning necessary at the same execution of the operational task assigned to each air unity ,but also at achieving the prerequisite vector of motion necessary for an effective engagement (with even only accceptable PK an risk for the enagaging squadron) of enemy aircraft with those air to air missile.

Naturally those operative elements have a value only if we talk of a conflict against an advanced opponent with hundreds of up to date specialized offensive and defensive assets (from Space to EW dimension) combined branch operations,long range offensive capabilities against enemy C4 adn airbases outside of high-end IADS's coverage (like pratically all the NATO bases widely spreaded around the world or,worse,the "improvised" bases like those in Saudi Arabia in Desert Storm ). If instead we talk of the "typical" immensely inferior opponent with an insulated "Air Force" not even worthy this name equiped with few export "monkey model" of air superiority aircraft,immensely downgraded ,devoid pratically of any effective offensive and defensive suit often with theirs elementary systems ,like radar and RWR, out of service for lack of spare parts for embargo,devoid of any AWACS,stand-in/off jamming aid, and lacking any type of long range bombing or cruise missile attack capability , attacked by the combined forces of a Coalition of advanced nations employing theirs most advanced sea, ground and air based assets and enjoying a crushing numerical superiority , all those elements previously pointed out become less than a detail For be even more explicit : an insulated ,"blind", MiG-29B-12 with radar not in service ,devoid of any EW defensive suit and of any efficient long range and short range missile against an entire enemy squadron with theirs most up to date air to air weapons at theirs disposal, coordinated by E-3 AWACS and aided by highly specialized EW units could be downed even by a Cessna-172

.....started taking AMRAAM's and clicking on solid fuel boosters so those missiles can also be used against Ballistic Missiles....greater range.

You need to quickly and.... seriously.... inform yourself on real and very specialized NCADE's operational capabilities That appear the typical product of the uninformed,childish,biased,"creative" attitude strongly present on low level sites

Who's to say the same solid fuel added AMRAAM's can't be fired from B-2's....or even dropped from Navy helicopters off of Japan to strike Russian fighters far far away?

Any person on this planet with even only a little fragment of specific knowledge on the subject.

San Diego, Calif. — The U.S. military needs a longer range AIM-120 to fully utilize the advances made by America’s fifth generation fleet — the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22 Raptor, said one of Lockheed Martin’s top test pilots.

The AIM-120 is an advanced medium-range air-to-air missile and America’s premiere air-to-air weapon in the fleet. The latest model, the D-model, can fly Mach 4 with a range of about 180 kilometers or about 97 nautical miles. William Gigliotti, Lockheed Martin’s lead test pilot at the Fort Worth site, said he wants to see that range extended to take advantage of the advanced radars inside the F-22 and F-35.

He highlighted the recent advances made by the Chinese and the range of their missile defenses and fighter aircraft.

“When we war game it out, that’s the Achilles heel of the U.S. fighter fleet,” Gigliotti said referring to the AIM-120 at a F-35 panel session at a Navy conference here. Two other Navy F-35 pilots and one Marine Corps F-35 aviator, who also sat on the panel, agreed with Gigliotti.

Gigliotti didn’t challenge the U.S. military to develop an improved variant. He instead challenged the defense industry to start developing one now.

Of course, the Air Force and Navy are in the last stages of operational testing for the AIM-120 D model. Most aircraft are equipped with the AIM-120C3-C7 variants.

Operational testing on the D-model was delayed when the Pentagon halted the program in 2009 to allow Raytheon, the lead contractor, to address four performance and reliability deficiencies. The program was restarted in 2012, but was then again delayed because of sequestration funding levels.

Besides the F-35 and the F-22, the AIM-120 is also carried by the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 along with other fighters.

San Diego, Calif. — The U.S. military needs a longer range AIM-120 to fully utilize the advances made by America’s fifth generation fleet — the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22 Raptor, said one of Lockheed Martin’s top test pilots.

The AIM-120 is an advanced medium-range air-to-air missile and America’s premiere air-to-air weapon in the fleet. The latest model, the D-model, can fly Mach 4 with a range of about 180 kilometers or about 97 nautical miles. William Gigliotti, Lockheed Martin’s lead test pilot at the Fort Worth site, said he wants to see that range extended to take advantage of the advanced radars inside the F-22 and F-35.

He highlighted the recent advances made by the Chinese and the range of their missile defenses and fighter aircraft.

“When we war game it out, that’s the Achilles heel of the U.S. fighter fleet,” Gigliotti said referring to the AIM-120 at a F-35 panel session at a Navy conference here. Two other Navy F-35 pilots and one Marine Corps F-35 aviator, who also sat on the panel, agreed with Gigliotti.

Gigliotti didn’t challenge the U.S. military to develop an improved variant. He instead challenged the defense industry to start developing one now.

Of course, the Air Force and Navy are in the last stages of operational testing for the AIM-120 D model. Most aircraft are equipped with the AIM-120C3-C7 variants.

Operational testing on the D-model was delayed when the Pentagon halted the program in 2009 to allow Raytheon, the lead contractor, to address four performance and reliability deficiencies. The program was restarted in 2012, but was then again delayed because of sequestration funding levels.

Besides the F-35 and the F-22, the AIM-120 is also carried by the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 along with other fighters.

At first I notice that this claim comes from Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon's employees.In french expression we said Gigilotti "preche pour sa paroisse", in english it gaves "Everyone looks after their own interests!", or "...speaking on your own behalf, speaking for yourself ". How an employee could say something that is against interests of those who employ him.However, the relevant mission is to find an objective US pilot that could provide an objective view.

AIM 120 and AIM 54 were typical hardwares that impress me during the 80's, 90's and 2000's when there were no internet connections, no objective POVs other than persons that were paid to say something.The occured this last week end, I've seen an old friend -he is pilot- and we talked about everything relating air to air combat, he certified me that aam's hardware are mere complement, the only utlimate moment of air to air combat are still again in 2014 dogfight.I won't add you stupide figures about the effectiveness of air to air missile provided by Raytheon, or Lockheed in order to have money from the tax-payers.As my friend, the effectiveness rate of air to air missile is still laughable, and most of the time it is always again and again the dogfight that decide who are the winners.

Flyingdutchman wrote:

Hannibal Barca wrote:Because this is what both sides report. But of course they may report fake numbers, I also don't believe that american inferior engineers can reach 180km. Even 50km would be a miracle for them.

Are you kidding me?If you think the AIM-120D cant reach 180 km or even 50 km because of its "inferior" engines, what proves to you that the Russian missiles would be so perfect?

....Iraqi MiG-25s remained operational and dangerous after this war as well: in 1993 they several times threatened US aircraft flying over southern Iraq unless one was shot down by USAF F-16s. During the rest of the 1990s, the Iraqis used them much more carefully, and tried to avoid direct confrontations with US or British aircraft, patrolling the no-fly zones. On two occassions in 1999 the USN Tomcats and USAF F-15s engaged Iraqi MiG-25s, firing AIM-54s and AIM-120s from maximal ranges,but missing every time. Iraqi Foxbats were always flown by the best IrAF pilots, and these learned to deploy and use their fighters in combat properly as well as how to evade attacks even by most modern air-to-air missiles already during the war with Iran. Nevertheless, at least three IrAF MiG-25s were lost in different accidents since 1991 alone.

Since the year 2000, Iraqi MiG-25s were reported flying recce sorties over Jordan, and even penetrating the Saudi airspace: the Jordanian F-16As proved unable to intercept any, while in early 2003 even the USAF F-15s came too late to catch the Foxbat that flew 60km deep over Saudi Arabia....

Mig-25 outmanoeuvred successfully AIM 54 and 120, an old aircraft designed and thought in 50's. I leave you imagine nowadays what could be done with the modern Mig-35, and SU-35. Especially, when Mr Obama threatens directly Russia. Mwahahahahahahaha

This is exactly what the friend told me, the air to air missiles are ineffectives, costly hardwares, and most of the time cumbersomes.No use to back about Gulf War I, and Serbia's campaign, the two leaders did not want to fight. For Iraq, many of their fighters fled to Iran, nevertheless, US said they lost nearly 40 airfrafts including a B-52-obviously mechanical faillures -, beside these stupid figures there were persistent rumours that at least 30 f-16 were lost because of accidents.Serbia, it is worth to recall, only few aircrafts were able to fly, and serbians pilots have only few hours of training per year. It is obvious in such condition to claim that your hardware are the best.If AIM 120 successfull's rate overpass 5% it is a feat.

The simple fact is that these guys have realised that they have short and medium range missiles in service but no long range missiles any more.

No great surprise as they cancelled the replacement for the Phoenix.

In air to air combat the whole purpose of the F-22 was to fly at high altitude at high speed (ie supercruise) and fire on targets at extended ranges where they were unlikely to even detect the US fighter as its stealth greatly reduces the distances a standard radar can detect it.

They fitted the F-22 with a powerful radar but just fitted it with standard AAMs... the result being a well camouflaged soldier with sniper skills is sent into enemy territory armed with an assault rifle... obviously a handicap.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

In air to air combat the whole purpose of the F-22 was to fly at high altitude at high speed (ie supercruise) and fire on targets at extended ranges where they were unlikely to even detect the US fighter as its stealth greatly reduces the distances a standard radar can detect it.

They fitted the F-22 with a powerful radar but just fitted it with standard AAMs... the result being a well camouflaged soldier with sniper skills is sent into enemy territory armed with an assault rifle... obviously a handicap.

Didn't I give you links explaining how an old Mig-25 moreover not very manoevrable, and heavy could shun the so-called state of the art US's milssiles ?Another quotes from Wikipedia that shows the triviality of the aam's concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_25

In yet another incident, two MiG-25s approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles at long range (which were evaded by the F-15s), and then outran the American fighters. Two more F-15s joined the pursuit, and a total of 10 air-to-air missiles were fired at the MiG-25s, although none reached them.[44] According to the same sources, at least one F-111 was also forced to abort its mission by a MiG-25 on the first 24 hours of hostilities, during an air raid over Tikrit.[45]

And

In another incident, an Iraqi MiG-25PD, aftereluding eight USAF F-15s at long range, fired three missiles at General Dynamics EF-111A Raven electronic warfare aircraft, forcing them to abort their mission and leave attacking aircraft without electronic jamming support.

No use to talk me about CNN's requiem, it is a mere parody of western propaganda.

It is obvious that if you launch 20 amraam it is possible that one reach the target . If none reached the goal -was it the case ? How much amram was shooted ? -what a pity for the taxpayer.

It just prove usefullness of the aam missiles. America won in Iraq not because of their advance technology, but mostly because they outnumbered the iraqis, and iraqis leaders did not want to fight. Since the 60's untill now if you have fair figure about the effectiveness of aam please tell us. If the aam's success rated overpass 2-3% including amraam it will be a feat.

You said too :

They fitted the F-22 with a powerful radar...

We talked about this subject a couple of months ago, as I tried to say the stealth technology simply did not work.It worked during -maybe ?- the first weeks, if not the first days of Desert Storm -US experts asserted that several F117 were spotted by iraqis radars-, but no longer after. Russia need not Pak-Ta, the Mig-29, and SU-27 families are enough to beat all western hardware nowadays. In Russia there are plenty of very good radars, very good pilots.

I wonder whether if a simple Mig-21 bis is enough. The friend of mine that he is pilot told me -as Pierre Sprey and many others experts asserted- that it is very easy -if you have a good pilot inside your fighter- to dodge any air to air missile.

And now debating about the range of aam missiles what is the interrest ? I you need at least 20 shots -??? if not more ?- to possibly hit your target.

How an employee could say something that is against interests of those who employ him.However, the relevant mission is to find an objective US pilot that could provide an objective view.

Of course an employee at Raytheon will say the US military needs a new long range missile... who do you think will make it for them?

Ask any pilot and they will say they need longer ranged missiles... the further away they can fire them from the safer they are.

Didn't I give you links explaining how an old Mig-25 moreover not very manoevrable, and heavy could shun the so-called state of the art US's milssiles ?

The MiG-25 didn't outmanouver those missiles... those missiles were fired at near max range... by which point the missiles would be gliding with no rocket propulsion... all you would need to do to evade such a threat is to wait till the missile was about 20km away and then put on full AB and pull the stick back and climb and accelerate. There is no way that a missile fired at a medium or low altitude target that has flown most of the way to its target would then be able to hit a target that is much higher and faster flying than the target it was attacking when launched.

Even if the launch aircraft continued to track the target and sent course corrections to its missile the missile will be gliding and out of rocket fuel so then having to climb will mean rapidly losing speed which means reducing range against a target that is now moving away faster than before... the missile doesn't need to be out turned... it will just run out of energy and fall from the sky.

Your average AAM has small control surfaces... they are effective because at high mach 1 or mach 2 or faster the airflow is rapid so a small surface deflected slightly can create a strong turning force.

the problem is that they are control surfaces... for turning and manouvering... they are not lifting force surfaces... they don't keep the missile in the air... at subsonic speeds you get no body lift and you fall like a rock... AAMs need speed and don't fly like planes... it is all about energy management... and max range shots with AAMs have a very low probability of kills.

It is obvious that if you launch 20 amraam it is possible that one reach the target . If none reached the goal -was it the case ? How much amram was shooted ? -what a pity for the taxpayer.

Long range shots against high speed receeding targets have a very low kill probability... those pilots likely took those shots to scare the iraqi pilots.

We talked about this subject a couple of months ago, as I tried to say the stealth technology simply did not work.

You look at the individual technology and call it a failure because it is not perfect.

Like saying a bullet proof vest is useless because it will stop up to 338 Lapua Magunum but wont stop 12.7mm BMG rounds. Even if it only stopped pistol rounds and shell fragments it would be worth wearing as shell fragments are a common killer of infantry.

Stealth makes things harder for the other guy, so it is worth it. It is not worth having everything stealthy... a MiG-31 replacement doesn't need Stealth as it will be operating its radar almost all the time so money spent reducing RCS is wasted.

The friend of mine that he is pilot told me -as Pierre Sprey and many others experts asserted- that it is very easy -if you have a good pilot inside your fighter- to dodge any air to air missile.

Missiles are very fast and travel in very near straight lines so if you know where it is coming from and when then turning on a course that it can't follow is not too hard... of course an RVV-BD fired from 300km away coming in at a steep angle from very high altitude with no smoke because the engine burned out a few minutes ago travelling at more than 1km per second would be very hard to spot and evade...

And now debating about the range of aam missiles what is the interrest ? I you need at least 20 shots -??? if not more ?- to possibly hit your target.

Most missiles have a max range and a no escape range... the latter is a high altitude shot at a target flying towards you, while the latter is where the rocket fuel runs out.

the no escape range the AAM is still powered and can climb as much as you can... if you see it you might be able to out turn it, but thrust vectoring and rocket side thrusters on some missiles and directed warheads on others can mean even a miss can kill your aircraft...

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

"Depending on what type of platform you are flying, that will change your perception of what type of capability you require," Neil Jennings, AMRAAM's business development director at Raytheon Missile Systems told IHS Jane's . "If you are flying a fourth-generation aircraft, and you know that the guy on the other side can see you, then of course you want a longer-range weapon; but if you're in a fifth-generation aircraft, a longer-range weapon would usually mean more size, more weight, and [be] larger to carry, and it's not necessarily a priority for you because if the other guys can't see you, then you don't have to engage them at super longer ranges. So the fifth-generation aircrew would probably want a smaller weapon so that they can cram more of them in their weapons bay - they'll be smaller, more agile, more manoeuvrable, and cheaper."

In September 2013, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control unveiled two company-funded potential extended-range AAM initiatives, which it proposed as concepts of interest under the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Air Dominance effort at the Air Force Association exhibition.

Under the Supersonic Testbed Risk Reduction initiative, Lockheed Martin is examining air-breathing and rocket propulsion, including multipulse motors, hit-to-kill technology, and different guidance on a future weapon in the same size class as the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Another initiative, Cuda, is described as a miniature (about half the size of an AMRAAM), radar-guided multirole hit-to-kill missile, designed to increase the air-to-air weapons load out on platforms such as the F-35 and F-22. The Cuda's range has not been disclosed, but it is believed that one variant could provide for a two-stage solution similar in total length to AMRAAM, and potentially offering an increased range or wider engagement envelope. Lockheed Martin declined to expand on either initiative, noting, "We're not currently in a position to discuss these, other than to say the Cuda programme is active and ongoing."...

AMRAAM has been significantly enhanced in the past 25 years, and the latest D variant was only cleared for operational use in 2015, after a protracted developmental and testing programme that began in 2006.

"When we think about generations of weapon, AMRAAM is definitely a fifth-generation weapon, that is based on the fact that there have been five major redesigns of the missile, incorporating large numbers of new hardware, major processors, and software improvements," said Jennings.

A development of the earlier AIM-120C, AIM-120D (P3I Phase 4, formerly known as AIM-120C-8 ) retains the same PN G672798-1 Plus 5 solid propellant rocket motor of the AIM-120C-5 and C-7 variants. However, AIM-120D delivers significant improvement in no-escape envelope and high-angle off-boresight capabilities over earlier variants. The missile now incorporates GPS-aided navigation for improved mid-course guidance and a two-way datalink for greater control over the missile's end-game targeting. The AIM-120D also features revised guidance software to improve kinematic performance and overall effectiveness, and improved electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM).

Jennings said, "The AIM-120C-5 extended the range of the AIM-120B fairly significantly, by shortening the control actuation system in the back and adding fins to the back end of the rocket motor. That added pretty decent range capability when you go from AIM-120B to AIM-120C-5. The C-7 and the D share the same rocket motor, and the same form, fit, function, size, and control actuation system. And both the C-7 and D have the same rocket motor as the C-5. Throughout AMRAAM's development, there have been improvements into the flight profile of the missile to get to the target. These improvements have led to range increases as well, and the jump from the B to the C-7 was fairly significant. The D can fly slightly farther than the C-7, and the C-7 can fly farther than the C-5. But this range increase is in the order of low double-digit percentages."

Jennings declined to discuss the specific range parameters of the D model, but noted, "As I look to the future and the new platforms emerging potentially from Russia and China, the airframe is something we will have to account for, especially in terms of radar signature. However, there is very little today that the AIM-120C-7 and AIM-120D cannot find and intercept."

Jennings said that he is currently unaware of plans to add ramjet propulsion to improve the range of the AIM-120D. "Raytheon, as well as some of the US government investigation agencies have continuously gone back and looked at how to optimise the range for AMRAAM, and there have been discussions of changing the propellants and doing other things in that area to increase the range. If we were to add a ramjet motor, would that solve all our problems? The answer is no."

Jennings continued, "There are a very small number of long-range scenarios where a ramjet-equipped AMRAAM might be an advantage, but those scenarios are fairly marginal, and once you get inside a certain range as you are approaching a target, a ramjet motor on an AMRAAM becomes not an advantage, but a disadvantage: because of the weight [of the missile] and the time to get it going - ramjet motors are initially slower than an AMRAAM motor - you are not going to necessarily get the missile to the target faster and make the kill in the amount of time that you need for it to happen."

Jennings said that performance enhancements to the AIM-120D will be delivered through a series of System Improvement Programs (SIPs). Since the AIM-120D was fielded in January 2015, the programme office conducted SIP-1 integrated testing with two live missile shots in March and May 2015. Operational testing for SIP-1 began in January 2016, and a SIP-2 upgrade is currently in planning. Jennings declined to expand on the specific nature of the enhancements provided under the SIP initiatives, noting, "The [SIP] programmes [are] designed to ensure that AIM-120D remains on the cutting edge. AMRAAM is a fully re-programmable weapon and a lot of what we can and will do to AMRAAM in the future will involve software updates. We are already looking at potential threats that will be on the scene in 2020-25 and beyond, and are now discussing SIP 3, SIP 4, and SIP 5 upgrades in terms of how can we design into the weapon those features that will optimise it to defeat those threats."

The programme office is currently looking to add new electronic-attack protection capabilities to the missile, through a software upgrade recently fielded on the AIM-120C-7. A network-enabled capability has also been mooted as a future enhancement for AIM-120D, although Jennings declined to comment on this.